Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34062210›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2021

Respiratory bacterial co-infections in intensive care unit-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Conventional culture vs BioFire FilmArray pneumonia Plus panel.

Claudio Foschi, Anna Zignoli, Paolo Gaibani, Caterina Vocale, Giada Rossini, Silvia Lafratta, Andrea Liberatore, Gabriele Turello, Tiziana Lazzarotto, Simone Ambretti

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Mortality in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients with contemporaneous bacterial and fungal infections.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudio FoschiMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy; Microbiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: claudio.foschi2@unibo.it.
Anna ZignoliMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy.
Paolo GaibaniMicrobiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy.
Caterina VocaleMicrobiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy.
Giada RossiniMicrobiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy.
Silvia LafrattaMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy.
Andrea LiberatoreMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy.
Gabriele TurelloMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy.
Tiziana LazzarottoMicrobiology, DIMES, University of Bologna, via Massarenti 9, Bologna, Italy; Microbiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy.
Simone AmbrettiMicrobiology Unit, IRCCS S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti n 9, Bologna, Italy.
Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence and microbiology of concomitant respiratory bacterial infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are not yet fully understood. In this retrospective study, we assessed respiratory bacterial co-infections in lower respiratory tract samples taken from intensive care unit-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, by comparing the conventional culture approach to an innovative molecular diagnostic technology. A total of 230 lower respiratory tract samples (i.e., bronchial aspirates or bronchoalveolar lavages) were taken from 178 critically ill COVID-19 patients. Each sample was processed by a semi-quantitative culture and by a multiplex PCR panel (FilmArray Pneumonia Plus panel), allowing rapid detection of a wide range of clinically relevant pathogens and a limited number of antimicrobial resistance markers. More than 30% of samples showed a positive bacterial culture, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus the most detected pathogens. FilmArray showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 89.6% and 98.3%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 99.7%. The molecular test significantly reduced the turn-around-time (TAT) and increased the rates of microbial detection. Most cases missed by culture were characterized by low bacterial loads (10

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionAdultBacteriaCoinfectionCOVID-19HumansIntensive Care UnitsRespiratory Tract InfectionsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityCoinfectionsCOVID-19FilmArrayRespiratory infectionsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34062210
PMCPMC8164500
OpenAlexW3164560622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.